"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." — President Clinton, 2 February, 1998
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998...tical.analysis/
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." — Madeline Albright (Clinton's Secretary of State), 18 February, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/0...022006_tpo.html
"He [Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." — Sandy Berger, (Clinton's National Security Adviser) 18 February, 1998
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/0...022006_tpo.html
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." — Letter to President Clinton, signed by (among others) Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 16 Dec, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government...in-10-9-98.html
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." — Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), 16 December, 1998
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, 23 September, 2002
http://www.washtimes.com/national/2...00743-9640r.htm
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." — Senator Hillary Clinton, (D, NY), 10 October, 2002
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." — Senator John Kerry, (D, MA), 23 January, 2003
Originally at http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speec..._2003_0123.html (speech given at Georgetown University) "but since removed." Numerous backup sources can be found by Googling.
-- Modified on 1/12/2005 6:16:01 PM
Thanks to France, Germany and the UN, Saddam had time to get them out of the country.
Considering the long time hatred between these two wings of the Baathist party that is so unlikely as to be laughable.
Just when I am beginning to give you credit, you throw up all over yo'self... metaphorically...
Present thinking in Pentagon/CIA/ HMSS is that they were indeed mythical.
We sure were not fans of the Russians during World War II, but sure as hell called them allies.
You forget one of the main rules, Politics makes strange bedfellows...
This was more like the Jerries and russkies- allies for a while- natural enemy israel- but their mutual dream of Arab world hegemony fell to oldest argument- who leads the dance. Saddam and Assad seem to us like anagrams but to each other? The resulting fight pretty much precludes them siding together on just about anything- but everybody hates the Jews!
These particular bedfellows fought like old queen exes! Think Ike and Tina. Read up on it- its is there for all to see.
"natural enemy"...SULLY
They may not like each other, but they prefer Muslims to Christians any day.
Are you totally opposed to the concept of education? Baathists are a secular anti Islamic force in the Arab world. They see the destructive influence of religion, especially in their world and fight against it like Communists. They are pro-Arab, the people, and Anti Islam the religion. So they welcome Arab Christians and Bahai followers.
Snow- this is getting sad. It's like you have never spent a day in a class room or with a book. Love your whoring posts- beginning to wonder how you got to afford them. Clearly college was not involved nor is any kind of news reading. What makes you all this cash and how can I get involved. My (limited) education is clearly getting in the way of a life of luxury- what is the secret?
We are still a larger threat to them than they are to each other. You dont whink Syria would jump at the opportunity to get its hand on these weapns, no matter where they were coming from.
Check these links
http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463
And there are a shitload more links out there, perhaps it is YOU who need to do some news reading...
Uh, Dude, can you try to find reputable sources? Worldnet daily is a known Bircher crackpot hangout. Why don't you just drag out old Pravda misinformation tapes? Or the flat earth society?
I try to stick with credible sources and my buddies from HMSS/Mossad. Not some fascist rags.
There are plenty of shitty things Syria IS doing to get me enraged about them. But these claims really do fall in the "Alias" class of drivel.
We could keep this going, but despite your theories and inforaing the odd alliances of teh past, you can;t prove that they are not there...
Ok, I've heard this one as well, and admit, it does seem to make the most sense of any of the theories I've heard put forth.
This being the case... why aren't we already in Syria? Where are the UN inspectors at least?
Naaah, I think this is just another red herring to misdirect us from the simple truth that Bush lied to us to get us to back his Iraqi Oil grab. And now look at the mess we're in. Feh.
it was not only the US that said he had these, Great Britan and many other countries, including the UN said he had them. He did manage to use WMDs on his own people in the past, so what else do you think could have happened to them? And please don;t tell me the UN inspectors destroyed them. Hell, they were hardly allowed to inspect which was one of the issues.
Why aren't we in Syria? well, have we been through 10 years of negotiations like we did with Iraq? Do we have multiple resolutions ciolated like we did with Iraq? The situation does not call for an invasion because the political route has not been exhausted yet.
BTW, if this is an Oil Grab, where the hell is the oil???
... IRAN!!! How about a story that hangs together.
Also there was sarin gas found in Iraq, along with various elements of a chemical weapons program. The nuclear program wasn't as far along as we suspected, but Saddam had stockpikles of Yellow cake.
If you are talking about the resolutions in the UN or the cease fire agreement with the US, Saddam had numberous weapons violations. Many were noted by UN inspectors who marked weapons and then LET SADDAM DECIDE HOW AND WHEN TO DESTROY THEM! Every wonder where all the ammo for road side bombs came from? More stuff the UN hoped Saddam would destroy after they put a sticker on it.
Uh, we have huge stockpiles of internationally illegal weapons. Have a record of using Nuclear weapons THAT NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS.
Pretty clear that the materiel used by the insurgents was stockpiled for just the kind of war we have to fight now.
Imagine that- an A-rab country outsmarting the USof A- gettin' us sucked into ANOTHER land war in Asia where we are again at a disadvantage politically. Except this time we have only 150K troops there instad of 500K. This administration shore ain't much fer that book learnin'!!
Dumb and Dumber- Saddam and Bush.
Every Gov't report and expert has said there are no WMD's there never were WMD's (in the time immediaitly before the war) and Saddam had no ability to make WMD's. So what gives? Where do you get this stuff from?
How can anybody take you seriously when you say stuff like this?
And again, if you say Syria has em, then I say to you, bullshit. If they were there, the Bushies would know it, the neocons would love it and the rest of the 500,000 strong armed forces would be nipping at the Gates of Damascus.
And you would be among those clamoring for us to go into
Syria and kick some ass the good old fashioned american way.
Bah... more hot air from the ignorant parrot division.
Try doing some digging outside the liberal US press, like the UK liberal press?
This is a good start with lots of links you can check out. I like the "142 nuclear bombs" part myself.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3739&search=wmd
There are more article about Sarin and Mustard gas, if you care to look for them.
Here's the lowdown on this spectacularly well known and well respected online journal:
The American Thinker is a long standing member of the news community, created in August of 2003.
The American Thinker is a 1-man operation run by
Tommy Lifson, prior existence and experiences unknown.
The website is operated through a local web hosting service in Berkeley. Berkeley, Arizona, that is. Which is nowhere near the UK.
Mr. Lifson is also a resident of Berkeley, Arizona. The telephone number and fax number for The American Thinker however, are from the same cel phone number registered in Hayward, California. Which is near Berkeley, California, but still not outside the US or anywhere remotely near the UK.
This is just another RENSE.COM, the authority funtime69 uses to prove some of his claims. Neither of them has any credibility or substance.
I even give Bill O'Reilley more credibility than this twit.
and yet he still roke the Monica Lewinsky story. Don;t underestimate the power of the indiviual.
BTW, right now he is a more cridible source than CBS...
but less than Dr. Seuss. Mr Murrow's instrument is a tad cracked these days.
He might be more cridible. But less Credible than, say BBC or ITN, or CNN, or many others. He's about the same as the Wash Times- in the Blind pig Vein- those acorns are out there to be had for all...
I am credible, yes I am
I post my news, as best I can
I tell no lies, I'm spick and span
Yes, I am credible, yes I am
Take some time to read this...
Read the whole thing.
No wonder you want me to read the whole thing... you're just being crafty in trying to get me away from here for awhile.
Sneaky sunuva....
(j/k)
... worked. When they were combined with those "toothless" sanctions, the existing WMD programs at the time of the Gulf War were found and dismantled. Further, new programs and production systems were not put in place.
A note to all of my friends that want to post and tell me that this does not "prove" that these things were effective: I can't prove a negative. However, You have no evidence there was anything going on. The politics of the situation suggest that administration would be screaming it from the housetops if they had any evidence.
Post another unacknowledged "win" for the UN and diplomacy over the elements of the "testosterone" right in the US (PS. there were lots of conservatives who counseled against the Iraq War).
Harry
A victory for the U.N. and diplomacy? The same U.N. that has sprung into action to help the suffering people of the Sudan? Let’s not forget Rwanda too – what a success that was. The same U.N. which wallowed in the corruption of the Oil-for-food program while the Iraqi people suffered under the boots of Saddam and his two little monsters? The same UN that sat around in a nicely appointed building in NY and passed strongly worded resolutions while Saddam and his regime filled mass graves with the corpses of 400,000+ men, women, and children – whose only crimes where being born a Shia or Kurd. Don’t forget that for most, the first stop along the way to the pit was the torture room.
It ain't all bad though, at least some of the families of Saddam's victims recovered the bodies - sans the head, hacked into quarters and left in a garbage bag at the doorstep.
Yeah, what a victory over us testosterone righties.
Sanctions and diplomacy were not working - read the Deulfer Report and see the evidence for yourself. When the scope and tragedy of the Oil-for-food scandal finally comes into the light, then maybe some of you will wake-up.
RLTW
... I don't have to defend everything the UN ever did to be consistent or make a good point. Bush I set the processes up I was defending. They worked. After we went back in we DID NOT find WMDs or Programs to develop same. If we had, the stories about the programs and where they were would fill the news & government releases.
Further, the report you reference doesn't matter regardless of how you read between the lines. Remind yourself of some elementary facts about a bureauracy. If there was anything important in those CIA reports, they would be 10 pages and filled with pictures. The director of the CIA and the Prieident would have delivered the news in a bit for TV from the rose garden. Instead, we got a news release. Come on guy, you write a 1000 page report when you have to deliver the news that you have nothing to say.
To quote some wonderful red state aphroisms.
The dog you're running here won't hunt. You can't shine shit. People that defend ideas that are contradicted by facts are three bricks shy of a full load.
Get yourself off as quickly as possible. Your juices are all backed up and they are affecting your thinking.
Harry
